Upcoming videos of March 2 conference

In case you haven't seen it, the R III Society website now has a summary and photos of the March 2 conference and promises that "videos of a selection of the presentations will be available on the website in a few days."

http://www.richardiii.net/#

Nothing new on the tomb controversy except a summary of the adjournment debate on March 12, but they've provided an online link to an article by Peter Hammond on whether Richard wanted to be buried in York. Hammond states that if we're going by chantry colleges that he founded, the same applies to Middleham and Barnard Castle as to York. Here's the link: http://www.richardiii.net/_devel/2012_12_ricardian.php

Carol

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 20:23
Subject: Upcoming videos of March 2 conference

> they've provided an online link to an article by Peter Hammond on whether Richard wanted to be buried in York

Very good and rational piece.  No one can say that they know where Richard would wish to be buried (albeit that it's easier to guess where he might prefer not to be!).  The argument has to be about appropriateness - not second-guessing intentions that were never recorded.

As someone who favoured Leicester, I'll admit to being disappointed with how the cathedral have handled things.  I don't have a strong preference as to the type of tomb/memorial - again, so long as it's appropriate.  But the design brief is a huge self-inflicted wound.  The wording is very awkward and really has no place in an architectural specification - it smacks of someone trying very hard to be objective and
getting it wrong.  If they'd just referred to Richard's historical reputation
as controversial or said he has ardent defenders and equally ardent
detractors, I'd have no problem.  Beyond that, anyone putting in a
tender should go and research the background themselves!  I do, though, understand why they didn't run the wording past the Society - that might be seen as unethical given that they've already submitted a bid.  It all underlines the fact that this is absolutely
virgin territory and people are making up protocol on the hoof.

Jonathan


________________________________



 
In case you haven't seen it, the R III Society website now has a summary and photos of the March 2 conference and promises that "videos of a selection of the presentations will be available on the website in a few days."

http://www.richardiii.net/#

Nothing new on the tomb controversy except a summary of the adjournment debate on March 12, but . Hammond states that if we're going by chantry colleges that he founded, the same applies to Middleham and Barnard Castle as to York. Here's the link: http://www.richardiii.net/_devel/2012_12_ricardian.php

Carol

Soooooo, even more reason why the Royal Family step in and make some decisions. They are familiar with Royal Funerals - Princess Margaret, Diana, The Queen Mum, just in the last twenty years or so. Yes, they were more less family (Diana) but they know the protocol. Surely the is a Royal Undertaker or Funeral Director. Sorry, I am ignorant of the proper British terms for these kinds of folks. And with HRM Elizabeth and Prince Philip getting up there, surely there is a plan in place.




On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98@...>> wrote:



From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 20:23
Subject: Upcoming videos of March 2 conference

> they've provided an online link to an article by Peter Hammond on whether Richard wanted to be buried in York

Very good and rational piece. No one can say that they know where Richard would wish to be buried (albeit that it's easier to guess where he might prefer not to be!). The argument has to be about appropriateness - not second-guessing intentions that were never recorded.

As someone who favoured Leicester, I'll admit to being disappointed with how the cathedral have handled things. I don't have a strong preference as to the type of tomb/memorial - again, so long as it's appropriate. But the design brief is a huge self-inflicted wound. The wording is very awkward and really has no place in an architectural specification - it smacks of someone trying very hard to be objective and
getting it wrong. If they'd just referred to Richard's historical reputation
as controversial or said he has ardent defenders and equally ardent
detractors, I'd have no problem. Beyond that, anyone putting in a
tender should go and research the background themselves! I do, though, understand why they didn't run the wording past the Society - that might be seen as unethical given that they've already submitted a bid. It all underlines the fact that this is absolutely
virgin territory and people are making up protocol on the hoof.

Jonathan

________________________________




In case you haven't seen it, the R III Society website now has a summary and photos of the March 2 conference and promises that "videos of a selection of the presentations will be available on the website in a few days."

http://www.richardiii.net/#

Nothing new on the tomb controversy except a summary of the adjournment debate on March 12, but . Hammond states that if we're going by chantry colleges that he founded, the same applies to Middleham and Barnard Castle as to York. Here's the link: http://www.richardiii.net/_devel/2012_12_ricardian.php

Carol

I believe the Duke of Norfolk is hereditary Earl Marshal and in charge of arrangements for all state funerals, for royals or commoners. Quite apt really for Richard

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Soooooo, even more reason why the Royal Family step in and make some decisions. They are familiar with Royal Funerals - Princess Margaret, Diana, The Queen Mum, just in the last twenty years or so. Yes, they were more less family (Diana) but they know the protocol. Surely the is a Royal Undertaker or Funeral Director. Sorry, I am ignorant of the proper British terms for these kinds of folks. And with HRM Elizabeth and Prince Philip getting up there, surely there is a plan in place.
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, "Jonathan Evans" <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 20:23
> Subject: Upcoming videos of March 2 conference
>
> > they've provided an online link to an article by Peter Hammond on whether Richard wanted to be buried in York
>
> Very good and rational piece. No one can say that they know where Richard would wish to be buried (albeit that it's easier to guess where he might prefer not to be!). The argument has to be about appropriateness - not second-guessing intentions that were never recorded.
>
> As someone who favoured Leicester, I'll admit to being disappointed with how the cathedral have handled things. I don't have a strong preference as to the type of tomb/memorial - again, so long as it's appropriate. But the design brief is a huge self-inflicted wound. The wording is very awkward and really has no place in an architectural specification - it smacks of someone trying very hard to be objective and
> getting it wrong. If they'd just referred to Richard's historical reputation
> as controversial or said he has ardent defenders and equally ardent
> detractors, I'd have no problem. Beyond that, anyone putting in a
> tender should go and research the background themselves! I do, though, understand why they didn't run the wording past the Society - that might be seen as unethical given that they've already submitted a bid. It all underlines the fact that this is absolutely
> virgin territory and people are making up protocol on the hoof.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> In case you haven't seen it, the R III Society website now has a summary and photos of the March 2 conference and promises that "videos of a selection of the presentations will be available on the website in a few days."
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/#
>
> Nothing new on the tomb controversy except a summary of the adjournment debate on March 12, but . Hammond states that if we're going by chantry colleges that he founded, the same applies to Middleham and Barnard Castle as to York. Here's the link: http://www.richardiii.net/_devel/2012_12_ricardian.php
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>